johnny guitar
Well-known member
The Bible does NOT say invisible image.An exact invisible image isn't human.
Jesus was made, born, as well.
It says The EXACT IMAGE.
Jesus The MAN was conceived and born; Jesus The Son of God was NOT.
The Bible does NOT say invisible image.An exact invisible image isn't human.
Jesus was made, born, as well.
Nope , there is no mention of a God the son in the scriptureTherefore He is God The Son.
No it does notThe Scriptures also say Jesus is God,
You should not worship any image....who IS the EXACT IMAGE of The invisible God.
You just posted the son Jesus is the image of God . How was Jesus not the image of God?Adam was MADE in the image of God; Jesus Christ was NOT.
No mention of deity of Christ in the bible. What is wrong with denying what is not in the bible?Those who deny The Deity of Christ belong to NO ONE.
But you said...who IS the EXACT IMAGE of The invisible God.The Bible does NOT say invisible image.
No,it does not There is no mention of exact image in the scriptureIt says The EXACT IMAGE.
yep sons come from their fathers. Therefore Jesus the Son of God was born.Jesus The MAN was conceived and born;
Luke 1:35Jesus The Son of God was NOT.
God The Son revealed all over The N.T.Nope , there is no mention of a God the son in the scripture
Yes, Jesus Christ was born as The Son of God and Man.But you said...who IS the EXACT IMAGE of The invisible God.
No,it does not There is no mention of exact image in the scripture
yep sons come from their fathers. Therefore Jesus the Son of God was born.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The bible says he was born.
The Deity of Christ is revealed in the first chapter of each gospel.No mention of deity of Christ in the bible. What is wrong with denying what is not in the bible?
God in the form of Man - indivisible. Man Yeshua Messiah is the form of God.In the form of man=Man.
I'm not a Trin to say He was The Father from eternity past. The titles of F & S dipict covenant relationship between God and Israel as His firstborn son.What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Nope
The God who is Yeshus' father
If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.
I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
I'm not a Trin to say He was The Father from eternity past. The titles of F & S dipict covenant relationship between God and Israel as His firstborn son.What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Nope
The God who is Yeshus' father
If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.
I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
First distinguish between Adam as Man and Jesus as a Man. You are lost in your own world.What is the nonsense? I said Jesus is a man...The scriptures say Jesus is a man...
Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Nope
The God who is Yeshus' father
If that is the case then Adam is God also. because God made Adam in his image also.
I am denying your false teachings. Satan is your king.
We also see Him as A MAN.God in the form of Man - indivisible. Man Yeshua Messiah is the form of God.
When scriptures mention about Him as Man - it's not to be mixed up with the first Adam. The 2nd Man was the YHWH/Lord from heaven:
1Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam 's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Adam was the figure/image of Him Who was to come
The Greek word translated as 'Figure'' corresponds to Hebrew word translated as 'Image' in Gen 1:26.
You have to look at Greek (LXX) - Hebrew dictionary.
G5179
G5179 * τύπος (tupos)
tupos H6754 * צֶלֶם (ṣelem) tselem
G5179 - 'Tupos' corresponds to H6754 'Tselem'
It's translated in Gen 1:26 - Let us make man in our IMAGE.
So, Adam was the Figure/Image of the One Who was to come. This proves that Yeshua is God/YHWH in Man's form.
Gen 3: 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
YHWH walking in the Garden? Adam and His wife hid from His presence? Walking needs legs. Voice needs mouth. Presence requires to have a body.
Exod 15: 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Was Moses mistaken to say YHWH is a Man of war?
It corresponds to Rev 19;11
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Scriptures are quite clear:
Phil 2:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
.His equality WITH God deals with His being totally transcendent. God is compounded unity - duality of powers. When we see Him we see the invisible God in all fullness.
You need to come out of tradition. There is no God The Son Who can call His Father God. The Son represents and Mediates for Israel.Therefore He is God The Son.
Did I deny that? God has been only visible in the form of ManWe also see Him as A MAN.
You haven't proven the later. It's that simple.Why? As man, Jesus was man. As God, Jesus was God. It's that simple.
Because if he's truly God, there's no need to pray or bow to anyone.
First off, yes I'm Jewish and don't believe in Jesus. I personally like finding discrepancies in the NT and how differently Christians feel about Jesus - some just a man and others divine.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sir, if your not a Christian, if you don't believe in the NT, why are you arguing with us about doctrines based upon those Scriptures?
That's a cop-out. Tanakh doesn't support a God the Son and the Spirit of Holiness is merely the Father, will, or prophetic message.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Belief in the Trinity is based upon the revelation of the NT. One must first submit to Jesus and his revelation before one can interact with the justification for this doctrine.
Oneness is exclusively alone, one. That's how He created, Neh 9:6.
It's interesting that Tanakh clearly says there's one YHWH, and one alone with that name, not three.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not to mention verses like Matthew 28:19 which distinguishes between the three while expressing the unity of the three in being the one God YHWH.
So, I don't take the NT serious on versus that many Christians take differently and are non-conclusive.
You would have a better chance of convincing me from a logical, rational stance outside of the NT.
scripture set #1. Revelation 1:12 " And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;" Revelation 1:13 " And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle." Revelation 1:14 " His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;" Revelation 1:15 " And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."Well, we disagree here because I don't acknowledge the NT as authoritative nor scripture. So you to convince me otherwise
Deut 4:8,12,15,35 shows God has no visible form. Your NT confirms it.The Bible does NOT say invisible image.
No, God isn't human so Jesus image wouldn't be like His.It says The EXACT IMAGE.
Jesus was just human.Jesus The MAN was conceived and born; Jesus The Son of God was NOT.
It's not a given. You haven't justified a need nor any support for several persons as God.Given that I'm interacting with your question of the inner workings of Trinitarianism, Jesus is God is a given.
Actually, they're quite rational. God doesn't worship another person as God.Sir, you are questioning the internal logic of Trinitarianism. Adding or saying "to himself" in this context is irrational. You are importing ideas foreign to Trinitarianism into Trinitarianism as to produce an internal critique of Trinitarianism. Such fundamentally undermines the rational of such arguments.
Of course I have. Does God worship God?You haven't been finding discrepancies. That would require you only interact with positions held in Trinitarianism.
You shouldn't need scripture if you can prove it rationally or logically.Nope. You don't accept as Scripture that which teaches Trinitarianism. So, questioning it's justification isn't a matter of revelation or logic, but simply the acceptance of Divine revelation.
Yes. The oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You can check the grammar regarding alone in Hebrew, etc.Yes. Have you made a relevant point? Oh yeah, you have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such verses are relevant.
And you don't think 3 persons share that name?Not really given that we believe there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name.
The NT is inconclusive. Just look at the forum and those for and against Jesus being God.That the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
Thank you. Can you do it logically?Which is why I'm not arguing for the Trinity with you from the NT.
Likewise.God Bless
It's not a given. You haven't justified a need nor any support for several persons as God.Given that I'm interacting with your question of the inner workings of Trinitarianism, Jesus is God is a given.
Actually, they're quite rational. God doesn't worship another person as God.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sir, you are questioning the internal logic of Trinitarianism. Adding or saying "to himself" in this context is irrational. You are importing ideas foreign to Trinitarianism into Trinitarianism as to produce an internal critique of Trinitarianism. Such fundamentally undermines the rational of such arguments.
Of course I have. Does God worship God?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You haven't been finding discrepancies. That would require you only interact with positions held in Trinitarianism.
You shouldn't need scripture if you can prove it rationally or logically.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope. You don't accept as Scripture that which teaches Trinitarianism. So, questioning it's justification isn't a matter of revelation or logic, but simply the acceptance of Divine revelation.
Yes. The oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You can check the grammar regarding alone in Hebrew, etc.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes. Have you made a relevant point? Oh yeah, you have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such verses are relevant.
And you don't think 3 persons share that name?DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not really given that we believe there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name.
The NT is inconclusive. Just look at the forum and those for and against Jesus being God.DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
Ok, so this is your belief.Listen to what I'm saying. If I'm explaining the logic of my beliefs, then I must be able to assert my beliefs and the relationship between them. That doesn't mean I think such an assertion makes them true. It's only useful to explain my position.
Ok, so can you provide some proof or logic to your stance?You are mixing up critiquing our internal logic and critiquing our assertions.
So, God can worship God?Nope. See, no discrepancy.
Ok. So where's the logic?You are assuming what I am not saying. The sequence of theological enlightenment is: revelation, then interpretation, and finally logical implication. You're stuck at revelation; that's all I'm saying.
Distinction isn't exclusively one, alone.Yes, the oneness of God is exclusively one, alone. You still have to interact with the distinction between person and being before such is relevant.
That 3 persons with the same name isn't one with the name YHWH. Only one can be named YHWH.And? What does that have to do with believing there's only one YHWH, one alone with that name?
They argue the same thing of your side. Maybe you should focus on the logic of the trinity so we can make some progress?Again, that the unlearned rebel against the obvious, shouldn't give you any reason to think the NT isn't conclusive.
LikewiseGod Bless